Letters: DNA of the democrat party

Saturday

Jul 14, 2018 at 1:01 AM

Dear Editor,

We have been listening to the democrat leadership over the past three or four months telling us about the democrat "blue wave" coming in November at the mid-term elections. They are in the process of jockeying around with the process of choosing their leadership. There are several prominent names coming to the fore, most of whom are solidly far left. For some reason the democrat leadership seem to think the American people are in line with that radicalized, liberalized far-left thinking. Even in the face of evidence through surveys of the electorate, there is not a great number of voters, in either party, who want to move to the far left. So, it remains to be seen how the democrat party is going to finally choose their leaders to speak for the party.

For the past week or so, we have heard news reports about Hillary Clinton raising more money for what likely may be another run for the White House in 2020. It appears she might be seriously considering yet another run at the prize she so covets that brings the power she desires.

We might well consider, not each individual in the running, but the "mindset" the party has built into its DNA that produces "clones" of the radicalized left way of thinking. With that built-in deoxyribonucleic acid, it is a fair assumption the democrat party will arrange by any means possible their final selection of its leadership, and slip into the power position a person who represents their new leftist worldview. If history is any evidence of future behavior, we need to examine that DNA pattern of the democrat party.

Remember the democrat party’s last Presidential pick, Hillary Clinton. She arrived at her position by the party "rigging" the nomination process against Bernie Sander. A person didn’t need to immerse themselves in the 24/7 news cycles to come to a knowledge of the entire Hillary thing. Just catching snatches of the news about the FBI Director informing the nation that Hillary would not be indicted after the extensive, comprehensive investigation into her emails and servers she used while serving in the Obama Administration for four years as Secretary of State. So, while setting up the punch line for indictment, the former FBI Director, James Comey, went through a long list of infractions related to Hillary's wrongdoing, like having multiple servers, sending classified information on her servers, deleting thousands of emails, not telling the truth during various interviews with Congress under oath, and other things that most regular people listening would count as felonies if they had been the subject of the same investigations. But the breathtaking punch line was there would be no indictment for Hillary, because she didn't "intend" to break the law.

Apparently, even under the questioning from Trey Gowdy directed toward the former Director of the FBI admitted that even though Hillary said there were no markings of classification on any of the documents, the former Director said there were markings on at least three of them.

So, with all that, lesser citizens without the Clinton political power and economic strength, with the backing of the President of the United States, would likely have been taken to the woodshed with an indictment that would have led to formal criminal charges, a trial with possible guilty verdicts, with sentencing of prison time or at least monetary fines. For Hillary, nothing. This represents a conclusive argument about the DNA of the democrat party, and the type of individuals they choose to run for the highest elective offices in the land.

So the question the American people should have been asking, including the democrat leadership, along with all the people who, up to that point prior to the election, even if they had already made up their mind to vote for Hillary for President is, "With all this information the former FBI Director verified that Hillary had actually done in regard to this one investigation with her emails and server, did Ms. Clinton have the right experience and the character to be President of the United States?"

Keep in mind, that single investigation was only one of many, many, instances where Ms. Clinton and/or her husband had been involved that cast a shadow on their credibility, both Bill and Ms. Clinton regarding her (their) service in the various government positions she had held. One could make the case, using all the evidence the former FBI Director presented, that at the very least, Hillary could have been seen as having a "consistent character flaw" that in many ways mimics an addiction that rendered her unable to make a decision regarding any situation that required honesty, integrity, and good character. When the former FBI Director couched Ms. Clinton's verbal statements as "untruths" it begged the question, "What is the difference between an "untruth" and an outright lie?"

The greater question, then and now, must be, "If Ms. Clinton had such a consistent character flaw that she seemingly cannot distinguish between the truth and fact, but rather consistently chooses to fabricate the truth when caught in an apparent criminal behavior, is that the kind of person who is the best choice to give the power of the Presidency to in order to make daily decisions that affect the lives of citizens across the nation?"

If she, or any other leader, was or is, able to use the excuse each time, "I didn't have any 'intent' to do that," the American people must realize we are in deep trouble with a finger with that DNA on the button of power for military decisions, foreign affairs decisions, economic decisions, domestic decisions, healthcare decisions, Supreme Court Justice appointment decisions, decisions for loading thousands of upper-level government agency appointments that translate into loads of federal regulations on every aspect of each and every American Citizen's life. As always, we need to think long and hard about having someone who might have an addiction to poor decisions regarding character.

Even after all of those events prior to the election in November 2016, I think it is pretty amazing that there were millions of Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton for President of United States after knowing all of those things that had been happening during the time she was running for President.

Finally, looking at all the possible candidates emerging in the democrat party for leadership, one has to calculate the effect on all American people, and the ramifications on the world scene, of a group of people who are even now demonstrating remarkable signs of the democrat party DNA markings, by being negatively against almost everything that has demonstrated to be a positive factor for the American citizen. Lower taxes, they are against. Stronger military, they are against. Rule of law, they are against. Stronger economy, they are against. Stronger standing on the world stage, they are against. The lowering of unemployment, they are against. Creation of jobs, they are against. Energy independence, they are against. That kind of DNA in the democrat party that produces clones of democrat leadership is not the DNA Americans need to be placed in America’s most powerful positions.

Jim Killebrew

Lincoln, Illinois

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.